413047-Underground-Commercial-Sex-Economy

The table suggests that three cities required significant adjustment: San Diego, Seattle, and Washington,
DC. The estimated relative size of the other four cities appears broadly consistent with the other
information (i.e., proxy variables and estimated currency in circulation). Relative size may have been less
accurately estimated in San Diego and Seattle due to their location. These two cities are further away from
the others in our sample. If distance decay was misspecified at all, we would expect this error to be
magnified in the cities that were furthest away from the others. The lp_solve approach appears to be
correcting for this problem.
Below, we list the percentages by which specific inter-city other proxy ratios were adjusted in the process
of solving the linear program:
Cross-city “Other” Proxy Ratio Adjustment (Percent)
2003 Atlanta Dallas Denver Miami San Diego Seattle DC
Atlanta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 20.00
Dallas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 20.00
Denver 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 20.00
Miami 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 20.00
San Diego 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 20.00
Seattle -1.61 -1.61 -1.61 -1.61 -1.61 0.00 18.07
DC -16.67 -16.67 -16.67 -16.67 -16.67 -15.30 0.00
2007 Atlanta Dallas Denver Miami San Diego Seattle DC
Atlanta 0.00 0.38 13.63 0.00 7.53 18.09 20.00
Dallas -0.37 0.00 13.21 -0.37 7.12 17.65 19.55
Denver -12.00 -11.67 0.00 -12.00 -5.38 3.92 5.60
Miami 0.00 0.38 13.63 0.00 7.53 18.09 20.00
San Diego -7.00 -6.65 5.68 -7.00 0.00 9.83 11.60
Seattle -15.32 -15.00 -3.78 -15.32 -8.95 0.00 1.61
DC -16.67 -16.35 -5.30 -16.67 -10.39 -1.59 0.00
Sub-national currency data in the United States is fairly poor. As a result, it is not entirely surprising that
several cities received substantial adjustments in order for the “other” ratios to be consistent with the
other information.
54